A scene of porcelain being shipped abroad from the ancient Changjiang Wharf in Jingdezhen at the Jiangxi Provincial Museum in Nanchang City Photo: IC PHOTO

---

Policy trials have played an important role in shaping contemporary China. However, existing scholarship tends to view them as a modern innovation, often influenced by foreign theories. This article shifts the focus to ancient China, tracing the evolution of policy trials within the context of economic reforms. It systematically explores the historical application of the “pilot test—scale-up” model and offers a comparative analysis with similar practices in other civilizations.

The study finds that ancient China had a rich and long-standing tradition of policy experimentation, which progressed through distinct stages: an embryonic phase during the pre-Qin era, formation during the Han and Tang dynasties, refinement in the Song and Yuan periods, and transformation under the Ming and Qing. Over an extended period, China’s approach to policy trials was relatively advanced compared to its Western counterparts. This progress was closely linked to the institutional foundation centered on a unified state, an ethos that encouraged experimentation, and a cultural emphasis on the transmission of experiential knowledge.

Emergence in pre-Qin period

As a period of profound transformation, the Pre-Qin era (prior to 221 BCE) witnessed a series of pivotal changes and developments. Amid the constant wars of annexation marked by shifting alliances, the age became known for the flourishing of diverse schools of thought and the emergence of outstanding talents. It was against this backdrop that policy trials within ancient China’s economic reforms began to take shape.

Specifically, in their efforts to seize territory and expand power, rival states turned to various philosophical schools for reform strategies. Some of these reform efforts thus bore the hallmarks of policy trials. However, they did not yet conform to the structured “pilot test—scale-up” model that later became standard. As such, the policy experimentation of this era can be regarded as its earliest, embryonic form.

Even so, China’s policy trials during the Pre-Qin period stood out in comparison to other states at the same time globally. This reform approach aligned with China’s political system and served as an important tool for mitigating resistance and advancing reform. Although not yet systematized, the reformist thinking of the period already embodied many core principles of policy trials. 

Legal instruments were especially valued by reformers, marking the early development of experimental legislation. These reforms often involved sweeping changes, which heightened both their difficulty and their necessity—underscoring the inevitability of policy experimentation. Outcomes were frequently positive, offering early evidence of the method’s effectiveness.

Formation in Han and Tang 

The Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) was China’s first enduring, stable, unified empire. Drawing lessons from the Qin’s collapse, the Han implemented a rational economic system. Unlike the preceding era of fragmentation, the focus of governance during this period shifted to how best to manage a vast and expansive territory. Against this backdrop, the establishment of the prefecture and county system strengthened central control over local regions, providing an institutional foundation for piloting policies at the local level—effectively creating “policy pilots.”

In particular, the large number of administrative units across the vast empire offered the necessary space to conduct trials, refine policies, and minimize their impact on the country as a whole. As a result, many major reforms during this period followed a clear “pilot test—scale-up” model, marking the formation of policy trials.

While both China and the Western world saw comparable developments under unified empires, China’s policy trials were more fully formed during this period. In contrast, Western experiments remained in a nascent stage and differed in significant ways.

First, the historical record shows a greater volume and frequency of policy trials in the Han and Tang (618–907) dynasties than in the Roman Empire. Although the Roman Empire—spanning from its founding to the fall of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire—saw major reforms under Diocletian (244–312), Constantine I (272–337), and Justinian I (c. 482–565), available historical sources do not show evidence of a deliberate use of systematic policy trials in these reforms.

Second, policy trials in Han and Tang were more systematically developed than those of the Roman Empire. For example, Zhao Guo’s “alternating field system” was tested and rolled-out incrementally through four administrative levels, whereas Augustus’s commercial prosperity policies were implemented in only two stages—initially in a single province, then across the empire. One possible reason for this difference lies in divergent administrative structures: the prefecture and county system established during the Qin and Han dynasties exerted stronger control over localities compared to the provincial system of the Roman Empire, thus providing better conditions for experimentation and implementation of new policies at the local level.

This is further illustrated by Augustus’s decision to trial reforms in Egypt—a province under his direct control—highlighting how the feasibility of trials often depended on the degree of central oversight.

Refinement in Song and Yuan

The emergence of the imperial civil service examination system and the southward shift of the economic center created more possibilities for economic institutional reform. A robust meritocratic bureaucracy provided strong support for national governance, while the growth of the commodity economy allowed market forces to play a greater role in reform than before. Consequently, although the overarching “pilot test—scale-up” framework remained consistent with that of the Han and Tang, the Song and Yuan dynasties witnessed a more sophisticated approach to implementation, marking this period as one of refinement in policy trials.

More specifically, policy trials during this era generally followed a clear path from local prefectures and counties to national implementation. Additionally, reform was not solely driven by bureaucrats—various actors from outside officialdom also played a role, indicating a diversification in the forms of policy trials. Moreover, the implementation process witnessed the emergence of more refined and supportive operational measures to ensure the smooth execution of trials.

Wang Anshi of the Song Dynasty (960–1276) was a representative figure of economic reform in this period. In advancing his reforms—including the Agricultural Irrigation Law, the Green Sprouts Act, the Market Exchange Act, and the Service Exemption Act—he adopted the method of experimenting at the local level before scaling reforms up to the national level. Kublai Khan, in the process of establishing the Yuan Dynasty (1206–1368), also used policy trials to implement reforms aimed at pacifying the population, thereby advancing his political goal of unifying China.

In the medieval period, most European countries struggled to address economic challenges effectively, largely due to fragmented and decentralized power structures. France was a partial exception; its comparatively stronger central authority enabled limited reforms that bore some characteristics of policy trials. Still, the absence of strong centralized authorities among Europe’s loosely structured societies—coupled with the constraints of a culture dominated by religion—hindered sustained reform momentum. Although some Western economic reforms during this period did possess elements of trials, they generally failed to achieve significant breakthroughs compared to earlier efforts.

By contrast, policy trials in the Song and Yuan dynasties progressed steadily and entered a more refined stage. First, the process exhibited a clearer and more structured path for scaling up reforms—moving from local trials to national implementation under the centralized bureaucratic system. Second, the involvement of skilled civilians and merchants reflected the dynamic and diverse development of China’s socio-economic life at the time. Third, pragmatic institutional measures—such as prior consultations and public notices—emerged to help facilitate effective execution.

Transformation in Ming and Qing

During the Ming and Qing periods, China’s overall economy continued to grow, and the centralization of power further intensified. However, this process was accompanied by deepening social contradictions. A sharp population increase, combined with stagnating agricultural productivity, led to widespread hardship among commoners. The outdated tax system failed to accommodate the evolving socioeconomic conditions, placing mounting pressure on state finances. In this context, policy trials repeatedly emerged as a critical means of reform.

A notable transformation in policy trials occurred during this era. Faced with increasingly complex economic problems, large-scale reforms could no longer rely solely on central authority. As a result, local governments became more involved in designing policy experiments, initiating pilot programs and interacting more directly with the central government. Thus, policy trials entered a phase of transformation—shifting from the previous “pilot test—scale-up” model to a new model characterized by ongoing exchange of reform experience and joint implementation by central and local governments. 

Notable examples include the “Single Whip Law” (yitiao bianfa) promoted by Zhang Juzheng during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), and the “Land-Tax Consolidation” (tanding rumu) and “Monetization of Surcharges” (huohao guigong) reforms in the Qing Dynasty (1616–1911). Zhang Juzheng’s reforms relied on personal connections and close collaboration with local officials, while Qing Dynasty reforms further highlighted the cooperative dynamic between central and local governments in promoting policy trials.

Meanwhile, European countries during this period also made considerable progress in policy trials. Although historical records suggest that many Western reforms were more exploratory and less systematically implemented than those in Ming-Qing China, they tended to be more diverse in content. This divergence reflected contrasting institutional logic: in China, policy trials remained state-led, aimed at addressing governance needs; in the West, they increasingly reflected a more open and pluralistic environment, with more varied goals, forms, and methods.

During the Ming and Qing, policy trials still adhered to the basic trial-based framework, but in practice, their implementation shifted. Local governments gained greater involvement and discretionary power within the overall framework set by the central government. In some cases, local authorities even took the lead in determining the direction of reforms, with the central government mainly playing a coordinating role. This evolution reflected the increasing complexity and difficulty of reform brought on by socioeconomic development.

Consequently, another observable phenomenon during this period was the lengthening of policy trials cycles. Unlike earlier periods, when reforms might be scaled up nationally within a few years, trials in the Ming and Qing often involved prolonged processes. This demonstrates that policy trials do not necessarily yield immediate results—especially under complex conditions, they may involve repeated setbacks and failures.

Li Dan is from the School of Economics at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics; Zhang Shen is from the Institute of Economics at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.

Edited by YANG XUE